James Finley v. People of the State of California

• Decision Date: 06 November 1911
• Docket Number: No. 15,15
• Citation: 32 S.Ct. 13,56 L.Ed. 75,222 U.S. 28
• Parties: JAMES W. FINLEY, Piff. in Err., v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

222 U.S. 28

32 S.Ct. 13

56 L.Ed. 75

JAMES W. FINLEY, Piff. in Err.,

v PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 15.

Argued and Submitted October 26, 1911.

Decided November 6, 1911.

Messrs. C. C. Calhoun, James N. Sharp, H. G. W. Dinkelspiel, Samuel T. Bush, and G. C. Ringolsky for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 28-30 intentionally omitted]Mr. U. S. Webb, Attorney General of California, and Mr. E. B. Power for defendant in error.

Memorandum opinion, by direction of the court, by Mr. Justice McKenna:

Section 246 of the Penal Code of the state of California provides as follows: 'Every person undergoing a life sentence in a state prison of this state, who, with malice aforethought, commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument, or by any means or force likely to produce great bodily injury, is punishable with death.'

Plaintiff in error was indicted under this section, tried, found guilty, and the death penalty imposed.To the judgment of the supreme court of the state, affirming the sentence against him, he prosecutes this writ of error, and urges as ground thereof that § 246 is repugnant to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in that it denies to him the equal protection of the laws, because it provides an exceptional punishment for life prisoners.

The supreme court sustained the law on the ground that there was a proper basis for classification between convicts serving life sentences in the state prison, as defendant was when he committed the crime for which he was indicted and found guilty, and convicts serving lesser terms.

It is elementary that the contention is to be tested by considering whether there is a basis for the classification made by the statute.Applying that test, we see no error in the ruling.As said by Mr....